Moral Philosophy and Social WOrk (JSWVE Fall 2009)

Moral Philosophy and Social Work Policy
Policies in the United States regarding personal responsibility and deviant behavior often follow an underlying moral philosophy. This article examines the philosophies in American social policy, and how beliefs about personal responsibility, definitions of deviance, and the role of the social welfare system shape current policies.


Amanda Reiman, MSW, PhD
Alcohol Research Group

University of California, Berkeley



Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, Volume 6, Number 3 (2009)

Copyright 2009, White Hat Communications



This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the authors and advance notification of White Hat Communications





Abstract

Policies in the United States regarding personal responsibility and deviant behavior often follow an underlying moral philosophy. This article examines the philosophies in American social policy, and how beliefs about personal responsibility, definitions of deviance, and the role of the social welfare system shape current policies.



Key Words: Deviance, social policy, moral philosophy, social work, policy analysis



1. Introduction

In all categories of policy-making, morality plays a role. Environmental policy, tax policy, and social policies all develop with a backdrop of moral philosophy. Beliefs about responsibility and personal rights often weave their way into legislation. In social welfare, this link can be blatant and far-reaching. When decisions are being made concerning policies and programs for human beings, the fact that people can play a role in their own destiny sparks the debate about the size and power of that role. Some, such as John Stuart Mill, feel that individuals should remain in complete control of their lives and the paths they choose to take based on individual circumstances. Others believe that it is the job of those with strong moral beliefs to guide and protect those who have “lost their way” (Reid, 1981). An argument further exists as to when others should step in and try to change a person’s desired behavior against his or her will. These discussions often occur as a reaction to deviant behavior committed by an individual or group.



Three moral philosophies, paternalist, consequentiality, and deontological, provide theories of the role of the will of man and social control in the evolution of society. At the heart of these philosophies are differing beliefs about under what conditions society should demand a person relinquish his or her free will for the good of the people and whether he or she should be judged by the consequences of his or her actions, or the actions themselves.



2. The Regulation of Deviant Behavior: Paternalism, Consequentialism, and Deontology

Behavior that exists outside the norms of a society is often subject to regulation. Which behaviors are chosen and how they are regulated can be influenced by the moral philosophies held by society. Three philosophies that often contribute to the identification and regulation of deviant behaviors in the United States are paternalism, consequentialism, and deontology.



Theories of paternalism state that individuals are responsible for preventing others from harming themselves or other people. The word “paternalism” comes from the word “paternal” for father. Indeed, Aristotle described paternalism as an extension of a family. In this way, paternalism can be viewed much as a parent-child relationship. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children do not harm themselves. Furthermore, if a child harms another person, it is the parent who is ultimately responsible (New, 1999). Another aspect of paternalism states that the intervener is logically more adept, knowledgeable, and a better judge of welfare than the person being paternalized (Leonard, Goldfarb, & Suranovic, 2000). Many social policies in the United States contain a type of paternalism called soft paternalism. In this view, individuals’ rights should only be overlooked when they are incompetent, incapacitated, or coerced (Leonard, Goldfarb, & Suranovic, 2000). This view of paternalism complicates social welfare issues such as coerced treatment, which occurs when a person’s competence might be subjective. In this case, the question of whether to force someone into treatment might be evaluated in either a consequentialist or deontological nature, which will be discussed later. As far as situations in which paternalism is warranted, consideration is sometimes given to the role of the intervener (New, 1999). Paternalism assumes that the paternalized person is unable to make a healthy decision and that the intervener is capable of making a better decision. New (1999) provides three situations in which a person might not be able to make as sound a decision as the intervener. The first occurs when the individual faces a “weakness of will,” meaning that temptation might prevent an individual from making a decision in his or her best interest. This situation is the most subjective. The second involves situations in which the person making the decision has little firsthand information to aid him or her in arriving at a decision. Third are complicated situations in which the intervener can provide specific and specialized knowledge.



Paternalism focuses on the right of those with knowledge, power, and ability to interfere in the lives of those deemed to be harming themselves or others, consequentialist and deontological theories center around whether the decision to interfere should be based on the person’s actions or the consequences of his or her actions. Therefore, both consequentialist and deontological theories can be carried out paternalistically.



Consequentialist policies are concerned with the consequences of the behavior in question, rather than the behavior itself. The term for this is agent-neutral. Consider, as an example, the act of driving drunk and hitting a neighbor’s mailbox. A consequentialist would argue that the only crime committed was destruction of property. In this case, the action of drinking and driving is neutral in deciding the outcome. Rather, it is the consequence of hitting the mailbox that calls for punishment (Louise, 2004). Consequentialist theory can be described as focusing on the consequences of a person’s actions when deciding whether to intervene. Two questions arise when considering this theory: 1) consequences for whom? and 2) what kinds of consequences?



Part of consequentialism considers who benefits or suffers from the consequences. To this end, there are two competing theories. Egoism states that decisions should be made based on the consequences for the individual, regardless of the consequences to others. By contrast, utilitarianism contends that decisions should be made based on the consequences for society, regardless of personal sacrifice. Both of these theories are considered consequentialist, because they focus on the consequences of actions, rather than on the actions themselves (Scheffler, 1994). A second aspect of consequentialism examines what kind of consequences result from a decision. Arguments exist within consequentialism as to what consequences are the ultimate aims. Hedonic consequentialism claims net pleasure to be the ultimate consequence. A variation on this is eudaimonic consequentialism, which has the stated goal of happiness. Some consequentialist theories have the goals of material equality or personal liberty (such as John Stuart Mill). In these cases, actions are taken to achieve these goals, regardless of other, less important consequences (Scheffler, 1988). An example of current consequentialist policies in the U.S. is gun law. It is not illegal to own a gun, as long as the consequences of that ownership do not involve crime. It is not the action of owning a gun or firing a gun that is illegal; rather it is the consequence of shooting someone or something or committing a crime with a gun that breaks the law.



In contrast to consequentialist theory, deontological theory focuses on the innate morality of the actions themselves, regardless of the consequences. In deontological theory, lying is wrong, even if it is done to bring about good consequences. As previously mentioned, consequentialist theory is agent-neutral and deontological theory is agent-relative. That is, in deontological theory, it is the action of the agent that is important, rather than the consequence of that action (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2004). Consider again the example of drunken driving policy. This policy is deontological in nature, because it is not only the consequences of drunk driving that are illegal, but also the act of driving drunk itself, on the premise that it is an inherently wrong, agent-centered action. One of the biggest proponents of deontological theory is Immanuel Kant. Kant introduced the idea of the categorical imperative. This idea maintains that a person’s motives for his or her actions should be acceptable as universal law. That is, people should act on motives that can be used by everyone in a moral society (Darwell, 2002). For example, a person’s motive for going to work should be such that if everyone adopted that same motive, it would be acceptable in society. For example, if a person’s motive for going to work is to provide for his or her family, it would be an acceptable motive for everyone to have. On the other hand, if a person’s motive for going to work is to steal from the company, even if it is justified in that particular case, it does not matter, because it is not an acceptable motive for everyone in the work force to have.



Deontological theorists believe that having the correct motive and action is preferable over achieving the desired outcome. However, this notion of an acceptable motive lends itself to judgment and subjectivity. Furthermore, deontology leaves little room for adjusting the action to fit the situation. One criticism of deontological policy-making is the power to decide what is inherently right. Deontological theories often find their way into so-called “victimless crime” policies. These policies, revolving around unacceptable private behavior, only consider the behavior itself, regardless of the consequences. If a person uses drugs, even if the only negative consequence is to that individual, deontics would view the drug use as inherently wrong and would therefore encourage policies prohibiting drug use. Sodomy laws are another example of deontological policies. The private behavior of consenting adults is prohibited because of the belief that the behavior is inherently wrong.



Another aspect of deontological policy is that the context in which the behavior occurs is not taken into consideration. This rule often softens even the most rigid deontic believers in extreme situations. For example, although deontological theory holds that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong, modern deontological theorists maintain that killing an innocent person might be acceptable if it is in the context of preventing a catastrophe. Furthermore, deontological theorists recognize that moral obligations have a ranking order, even among several inherently “right” options, in the context of the situation (Haydar, 2002). To this end, consequentialist and deontological theories disagree as to the best method of making a decision. Consequentialist theory dictates that to make a decision, all the alternatives are laid out and the decision that leads to the intended consequence is chosen. In deontological theory, there is an innate “right” answer for any decision, so laying out alternatives is not necessary (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2004).



At the heart of the differences in moral philosophy is the argument about whether it is the consequence or the action that is most important. Consequentialists maintain that it is the consequence that should be considered when making a decision. This can be a consequence for an individual (egoism) or a consequence for society (utilitarianism). The consequence can also be psychological in nature, such as happiness, or principled in nature, such as personal liberty. Consequentialist policies, such as gun control, often develop laws based on the consequences of actions, rather than the actions themselves. On the opposite end, deontological theorists insist that it is the action itself that should be the focus. Furthermore, deontics believe that each action is inherently good or bad, although modern deontics allow some exceptions based on the magnitude of the situation and the order of importance among competing moral values. One major criticism of this is, again, that it is up to those in power to decide what is inherently right or wrong and legislate accordingly, often criminalizing private, consensual behavior on the grounds of morality and a societal or political definition of deviance. Each of these theories can be carried out in a paternalistic way. That is, both consequentialist and deontological policies can incorporate different levels of intervention and different levels of coercion within the intervention. The following sections of this article will focus on how these philosophies play out across three areas of social policy around deviant behavior: welfare, drugs, and sexual behavior.



3. Social Policy

Social policy development encompasses problem identification and definition, and policy design and implementation. Before considering how moral philosophy plays into the development of social policies, it is important to differentiate between two ways of defining social policy. Social policies can be activities of Federal and local governments, such as laws or programs that are aimed at improving the well being of members of society (Jansson, 1999). Sometimes social policies are aimed at the general population, such as in the case of drug laws, and sometimes they are designed for a particular segment of the population, such as in the case of disability insurance. The population for which the policy is intended can influence the philosophy on which the policy is based and the level of paternalism with which the policy or program is carried out. This influence is the second part of defining social policy. Social policies can also refer to the authoritative distribution of values. How a social problem is defined and what determines the “success” of a social policy is often determined by the values of those in power who design and implement the policy. Therefore, social policies are both legislative actions and reflections of the values and morals of those who design the policy. For example, welfare policies are legislative acts of government. However, stipulations for receiving aid and the funds allocated to ensure the quality and success of welfare programs reflect the ideas of “right living” held by those who created the policies: that is, marriage, stable employment, owning a house, and no drug use. Furthermore, the lack of program funding and strong paternalistic nature of these policies speaks to the underlying idea that vulnerable members of society do not deserve as much as the rest of society and are applicable to the enactment of soft paternalism, even though they might be adults of sound mind and body (Leonard, Goldfarb, & Suranovic, 2000). Indeed, the ways in which social problems are identified and operationalized is also influenced by underlying moral philosophies. Why is drug use acceptable if a doctor prescribes it and not if a person decides to use it on his or her own? There is a commonly held belief that drug use is dangerous, doctors are experts, and dangerous activities should only be done under the watch of an expert. This situation would fall under New’s (1999) criteria for the use of paternalism. However, if this is true, then why is alcohol acceptable to use without a doctor’s note, when it, too, is dangerous? This example shows that within social policies lie conflicting messages about right and wrong. This conflict stems from the influence of moral philosophy on the identification and definition of social problems. If laws concerning the use of drugs were based solely on the scientific research concerning their harm to the user and society, they would look very different from the laws that exist today.

Regardless of how a social problem is defined, the subsequent policy has elements designed to ensure compliance. These elements can be normative or coercive. Moral philosophy can influence which type of compliance tool is used. When a policy is designed to encourage behavior deemed “desirable” by those in power, normative compliance tools are used, which reward the individual for engaging in the desired behavior. Examples would be tax credits for being married and having children, and access to the carpool lane for hybrid vehicles. When a policy is designed to discourage behaviors deemed “unacceptable” by those in power, coercive, and therefore paternalistic, elements are used. For example, those who receive public housing can lose it if they are caught using drugs, and students can lose their college funding if they incur a drug conviction. The act of rewarding those who engage in “desirable” behaviors, and punishing and controlling those who engage in “undesirable” behaviors, and rely on the government for aid, reflects the influence of moral philosophies in controlling behavior.



4. Moral Philosophy in the Development of Social Policies that Address Deviant Behavior

Now that paternalism, consequentialism, and deontological theory have been discussed in relation to their definitions and role in social policy, and the issues surrounding the definitions of social problems and the development of such policies have been explored, I will look at three specific and often controversial issues in social welfare dealing with perceived deviant behavior. These issues are examined with respect to how current policies reflect the moral philosophies discussed in the first section. The three areas are: welfare policy, drug policy, and sexual policies.

The deontological basis for welfare policy can be traced back to the idea of the “deserving poor.” This idea maintains that certain people deserve aid because of physical, emotional, or psychological impairment. Those deemed unimpaired are expected to be able to pull themselves up and succeed without extra assistance. This ideal has prevailed in current welfare policy. Those who apply for public aid but are not on disability are labeled as lazy and irresponsible. Welfare to work programs are a way of asking that population to prove their worth by fulfilling work and other welfare-related requirements. These requirements send a message to recipients that society will not support them unless they pay a penalty. What is commonly overlooked is the idea that many welfare recipients cannot hold stable employment because of family status, completely unrelated to responsibility and laziness (Reamer, 1982; Rainford, 2004). Rainford (2004) conducted a qualitative study (n=30) looking at the barriers that exist for welfare recipients that keep them from completing work requirements. The barriers identified included domestic violence, lack of education, health issues, lack of child care/transportation, no caseworker, and communication disconnect. Furthermore, the sanctions put in place after failure to complete work requirements did not have an effect on future requirements. In this case, a deontological approach is expressed in a punitive and retributive manner, enforcing the agent-relative status of the policy.

The barriers mentioned above are all considered consequences of both poverty and system involvement. If sanctions are imposed for agent-relative behavior (i,e., completing work requirements, staying sober, making meetings, etc.) while ignoring the consequences, then the policies are directed at punishing and changing personal behavior, in a coercive way, by an agent of change deemed more adept than the recipient. Current welfare policy can be described as deontological, with its provision paternalistic in nature.

In 1996, welfare reform brought about work and time requirements as motives for recipients to get off welfare and enter the working world within a certain amount of time (Fellowes & Rowe, 2004). This illustrates the belief that not working is a deviant behavior that is not allowed in this society. Moral philosophy has informed welfare policy at both an organizational and individual level. Paternalism, in the philosophical sense, is defined by a non-consensual intervention in which the intent is to stop harmful behavior and the intervener is deemed more adept than the subject of the intervention. However, when discussing welfare policy, paternalism is defined as “social policies aimed at the poor that attempt to reduce poverty and other social problems by directive and supervisory means” (Mead, 1997, p. 2). It is these directive and supervisory means that take on a paternalistic tone. As previously mentioned, a policy can be either consequentialist or deontological and be carried out paternalistically (although deontological policies often lend themselves more easily to paternalistic provision). In the case of welfare policy, the requirements set forth by the government in exchange for public assistance are paternalistic in nature. The intervention may, however, be viewed as consensual, since the welfare recipient agrees to these requirements. But, if fulfilling the requirements is the only means by which aid can be received, then the agreement cannot be recognized as fully consensual. If current welfare policy is intended to be deontological in nature, as many suggest (Kaplow & Shavell, 2004; Wilson, Stoker, & McGrath, 1999; Rainford, 2004; Fellowes & Rowe, 2004; Reamer, 1982) does the paternalistic provision overshadow the moral intent? One criticism of an over-reaching paternalistic welfare system is that too many requirements lead to the disruption of the moral message intended by a deontological policy. The assertion is that the time spent between welfare recipients and caseworkers filling out forms distracts from the ability of the caseworker to act as a moral role model, if that is indeed their intended role. Supposing that welfare caseworkers ARE proposed moral leaders as suggested by Wilson et al. (1999), the paternalistic requirements associated with welfare policy distract workers from providing guidance and knowledge, one of the requirements of a paternalistic intervention.

Fellowes and Howe (2004) provide a thought provoking discussion on the possible ways that individual states can adopt either consequentialist or deontological policies regarding aid distribution. These theories are all acted out in a paternalistic manner, as described above. First, Fellowes and Howe discuss the reproductive behavior of recipients and its effect on aid distribution. If reproductive behavior, operationalized by the number of unwed births, increases in a state, the state can react deontologically and restrict aid and increase requirements to send a message that the immoral behavior of having a child out of wedlock will be punished. However, reproductive behavior can also result in a consequentialist situation in which, in response to rising out of wedlock births, the state increases aid and relaxes requirements as to address the consequence of having a greater number of children in the system. This moral crossroads can also be seen in relation to a state’s level of welfare dependency. Like reproduction, dependency can lead to the reduction of benefits to punish the increase in immoral behavior, or an increase in benefits to deal with the consequences of greater dependency (Soss, Schram, Vartarian, & O’Brien, 2001). In addition to welfare policies, drug policies in the United States are also derived from the legislation of morality.

The War on Drugs has been the motivation for drug policies developed during the past 40 years. This punitive approach calls for the imprisonment of drug users and long, mandatory sentences for drug sellers. Furthermore, drug users are portrayed as deviants by the media and the government, and the normalization of drug use is forbidden (Duster, 1970). U.S. drug policy is heavily deontological and is presented within a paternalistic framework. The punishments for drug use often disregard the consequences of that use when deciding the punishment. This is not the same thing as the punishment for a car accident increasing in severity if drugs are involved, but rather the punishment for using the drug itself. If a person is walking erratically in a park and is stopped and searched by police, the discovery of drugs would likely lead to an arrest, even if the consequence for using the drugs has yet to be determined. Rather, the agent-relative act of drug use and possession is the crime. This follows a deontological perspective. A consequentialist policy would not place the person under arrest unless the consequence of the drug use infringed on the rights of others. In the example given above, a consequentialist policy would allow the person to possess drugs and walk erratically in the park. However, if the person destroyed another’s property or assaulted someone, that would be grounds for arrest, again, not because of the role of the drugs, but rather the consequence of the situation. Today, drug policy seeks to legislate the moral behavior of individuals by imposing illegality on the consumption of certain substances and not others, rather than legislating negative consequences, no matter what the antecedent.

After a person is arrested for drug use, the system takes on a paternalistic role. The authorities offer the offender choices concerning his or her punishment, sometimes offering a deal for information, sometimes offering treatment. In each case, the assumption is that the offender needs the help of the authorities and that the authorities know what is best for the offender. Even though the threat of jail prevents the cooperation of individuals and authorities from being consensual, soft paternalists would argue that a drug addicted person is not capable of making decisions in his or her best interest. Therefore, it is appropriate for the authorities to intervene in a non-consensual manner. Many drug-related paternalistic policies intersect with social welfare. Stipulations for receiving food stamps, public aid, public housing, and employment involve a person being free of drug related charges and not using drugs. This paternalistic design ensures that in order to receive an intervention from the system, the recipient must follow the rules set forth concerning drug use. This is also deontological in that it is up to the agent (agent-relative) to behave appropriately, rather than up to the system (agent-neutral) to help the agent identify choices for achieving the desired consequence. If this were the case, drug use would only become an issue if it stood in the way of the agent following through on what has been identified as the best course of action, therefore putting the desired consequence in jeopardy.

Those involved in researching and constructing drug policy often differ on when the intervention should occur. The current drug control strategy focuses on intervening at the agent level, by prohibiting use, intercepting drug shipments and making a drug free life a stipulation for receiving many benefits from the Federal government. In 2001, 55% of Federal inmates were incarcerated on drug charges. In state prisons, 20.4% of all inmates were drug offenders (Harrison & Beck, 2003). This process is, by definition, deontological, because of the focus on the actions of the agent, rather than the consequences of those actions. The other group of researchers, policy makers, and scholars in the drug arena seek to intervene in a consequentialist manner, by focusing their interventions around harm reduction and treatment. Harm reduction, the act of minimizing the harmful consequences of a behavior, exists outside of the realm of drug policy. Wearing a seatbelt, a helmet, or a condom are all harm reduction strategies, aimed at minimizing the potential harm of a car accident, bike accident, or sexual experience. Similarly, services such as needle exchange centers and Ecstasy testing at raves seek to minimize the harm that might result from drug use. The common reaction from deontologists when faced with harm reduction strategies is that they “send the wrong message.” This insinuates that by accepting that people are going to use drugs and trying to minimize harmful consequences, the moral message is that drug use is okay, which strongly contradicts their deontological message about the innate wrong or “ mala in se” of drug use.

One scholar who supports this notion of deontological drug policy is Jerome Skolnick. Skolnick (1992) presents the two sides of drug policy presented above in terms of “mala in se,” drug use as a natural or moral wrong and “mala prohibitum,” a regulatory issue. Skolnick argues that the current drug control strategy in the U.S. is based on the principle of “mala in se.” To support this idea, he refers to the first National Drug Control Strategy, written in 1989, in which then-President George Bush referred to drug use as a sign of deficient moral character and a weakness of will. Furthermore, the strategy called for an increase of $1.5 billion dollars for both the enforcement and interdiction arms of drug control, but only $321 million for treatment and $250 million for education. Again, this puts the emphasis on punishing the personal decision to use drugs, rather than attempting to lessen the negative consequences of drug use. Skolnick suggests that a consequentialist drug policy would look very different, relying on a more evidence-based approach, in which great care would be taken to determine the most effective method for addressing the negative societal consequences of drug use, rather than trying to control individual behavior with the threat of imprisonment or the denial of Federal aid.

Another framework in this area suggests that although those in favor of harsh penalties for drug use often cite morality, they cannot be ruled out as consequentialists. MacCoun and Reuter (2001) explore this idea by looking at the full arguments of typically deontological policy makers and scholars, such as former Drug Czar William Bennett and author James Q. Wilson. While both Bennett and Wilson have cited moral repugnance for drug use, they often provide consequentialist reasons for their feelings, such as the effect that drug abuse has on the family and the community. However, MacCoun and Reuter conclude that even though some moral anti-drug arguments are backed with the inherent consequences of drug use, the policies surrounding drugs and their use in society still come from a place of personal morality and responsibility. It is my belief that if Bennett and Wilson truly believe that the negative consequences of drug use should be the primary rationale for their legal status, there would not be as much support for punishing users and sellers. Rather, funding would be channeled to programs and policies directed at reducing the negative consequences of drug use on the family and community and the rigorous and constant evaluation of their effectiveness.

Similarly to drug policies, the inherent question concerning sexual policies surrounds the legislation of an act that is consensual based on its view by some as “immoral.” Deviance from the traditional structure of a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman has elicited a backlash from religious groups and many Republicans, including former President Bush, who favors a Constitutional amendment to prevent “deviant” sexual behavior. Legislation against homosexuality, gay marriage, and prostitution are based in the deontological argument that sexual acts of this manner are mala in se, natural wrongs. Sexual behavior is another arena in which harm reduction has played a role in attempting to inject some consequentialist programs into a deontological policy. Other countries have embraced the role of harm reduction in their sexual policies. Countries such as Amsterdam provide services for prostitutes, such as AIDS testing and condoms, in the hopes of preventing disease and unplanned pregnancy. Again, in the United States, services such as condom distribution are seen as “sending the wrong message.” Just as with drugs, the stance is that addressing the consequences of sexual actions rather than the decision to engage in the act is somehow saying to society that the act is okay. This is an argument often heard in respect to giving teens access to condoms. A deontologist would argue that premarital sex is morally wrong, and to give out condoms is saying otherwise. A consequentialist would note that if unplanned pregnancy or disease is a possible consequence of sexual activity, addressing and trying to prevent those consequences through means proven effective (condoms) is the best course of action for the good of society. Legislation and policies surrounding sexual behavior bring up issues about privacy and the role of a paternalistic system.

As previously mentioned, in a paternalistic policy there exists an unequal relationship between those in power and those who need to be helped. Soft paternalists qualify the need to be helped as someone who is a minor, weak willed, or otherwise unable to make his or her own decisions. The premarital sex issue speaks to this because of the involvement of minors. However, the issue becomes cloudier when dealing with consensual acts between adults, such as homosexuality or prostitution. First, a note, it is in no way my intention to equate prostitution with homosexuality or to insinuate that they are similar acts. Rather, they are both examples of sexual acts with differing and subjective measures of consensuality.

The notion of paternalism that the agent is somehow weak willed and in need of intervention is held up by the claim that homosexuality is a choice and not an innate quality. For those who believe the choice model, it is easy to justify why a paternalistic intervention might be necessary. For those who support the notion that one is born homosexual, it is difficult to understand the rationale for legislating private behavior between two consenting adults who are more than capable of making their own decisions.

Similarly, the paternalistic nature of legislation against prostitution assumes that the prostitute is weak willed and unable to decide for herself or himself what is right. This follows directly with the deontological argument that prostitution is mala in se, and the very fact that a woman chooses to engage in prostitution shows her incompetence and therefore calls for an intervention by the system. Another aspect of paternalism is using misinformation or withholding information as long as it supports the message of the Paternalist. In his book, The Legislation of Morality, Duster (1970) refers to a TV movie entitled Never on Sunday, which was banned in many places in the United States. This was not because of sexually explicit content; rather, it was banned because of its portrayal of a prostitute as a compassionate person with feelings and morals. To show a prostitute with character would have violated both the deontological idea that someone cannot be a moral person if he or she engages in what is considered an immoral act and the paternalistic notion that prostitutes are capable of making strong willed, informed decisions about their well being without professional intervention.



5. Implications for Social Work

Moral philosophy plays a role in policy formation, but how does moral philosophy intersect with the profession of social work? Social work often addresses society’s deviant behaviors and seeks to integrate those classified as “deviant” by society into healthy, happy lifestyles. On the macro level, moral philosophy helps shape social work as a profession. On the micro level, moral philosophy connects with social work practice around specific issues, such as coercion. Although the client side of social welfare focuses more on avoiding negative consequences and generating viable alternatives, the professional side of social work is more ambiguous as to whether the appropriate course of action is agent-relative or agent-neutral.

The profession of social work follows both deontological and consequentialist philosophies. Reamer (1982) identifies three questions that guide the social work profession and its associated ethics: authoritative, distributive, and substantive. These three areas can come into conflict with one another, presenting ethical dilemmas for social workers.

The authoritative question asks how social workers know when and how to intervene in a client’s life. Reamer points out that there are many reasons why a social worker might intervene. There are three classifications of factors that might influence the decision to intervene: technical, empirical, and ethical. The technical reasons are highly consequentialist, such as a successful consequence with another client in a similar situation, or specific knowledge about the effectiveness of a particular intervention. The empirical reasons for intervention are also consequentialist and based on research and program evaluation. Ethical reasons for intervention are deontological, such as a disagreement with the morals and practices of a client. Reamer claims that a social worker cannot rely on any one way to make the decision to intervene. Rather, the contribution of each type of decision should be weighed and looked at in terms of its effect on the client. For example, social work research may show that condom distribution in schools lowers the pregnancy and disease rates of sexually active teens. However, this contribution of empiricism might be overlooked if the school counselor insists on an abstinence only program, as a result of his/her personal beliefs.

The distributive question focuses on two issues. First, whose interests should social workers concern themselves with? This question brings about the issue of paternalism. If society is truly paternalistic, then it is the moral responsibility of citizens who are doing well in life to intervene and aid those who are down on their luck. Under the current welfare structure, the system takes responsibility for providing aid to those who need help. However, the deontological underpinnings of the welfare system put moral requirements on those who wish to receive aid. As Reamer points out, the beginnings of social work’s Charity Organization Societies greatly revolved around the Christian principle of helping those who have lost their way see the light. The second part of the distributive question concerns how goods and services should be distributed. Consequentialists such as Hume and Bentham argue that goods should be distributed based on what will provide the best consequences for larger society. Aristotle believed that goods should be distributed according to virtue; Marx felt that need was the most important criteria. The question of service distribution can also be affected by the professional’s moral philosophy. For example, if a social worker receives a charitable donation and must decide how to distribute the money, a deontological social worker might give the money to a program that subscribes to his or her own idea of morality, such as Planned Parenthood, if the worker believes strongly in a woman’s right to choose. A consequentialist social worker might research the effectiveness of various programs when making his or her decision. Or, that social worker might find a way to distribute the money that would help the greatest number of programs, therefore increasing the positive consequence for society.

The substantive question asks which actions, goods, and services are regarded as helpful and worthwhile, and why. This question revolves around the idea of morality. The evaluation of actions calls for the determination of their innate right or wrong. When evaluating goods and services, the question becomes whether that program is morally good or bad. For example, is the action of breaking confidentiality morally right or wrong? Similarly, is the service of needle exchange morally good or bad? A deontic would argue that the answers to these questions are the same in every situation and should be based on whether the action in question could be committed by anyone in society and deemed acceptable. A consequentialist would interject that rather the consequence of any action or program should be the primary focus in determining its worth.

This conflict is addressed by Ross’s (1930) idea of the difference between a prima facie duty and an actual duty. A prima facie duty is one that the social worker should perform, all other things being equal. The prima facie duty lends itself well to a deontological argument, since it ignores the other circumstances of a situation in favor of deciding what is innately right and moral. An actual duty is what the social worker ends up doing, once the circumstances and intended consequences of the situation have been established. For example, confidentiality is a prima facie duty of social work. It is consider an innate right of the profession to keep client information confidential. A deontologist would claim that this virtue should be followed, no matter what the circumstance. However, if a client tells the social worker that he/she is going to harm a co-worker, breaking confidentiality becomes the actual duty; the decision that is considered morally right once the circumstances and consequences are considered.

The morality of social work as a profession continues down through the general code of ethics and into specific practice situations. One of those situations is coercion. Although the decision to intervene has ties to both deontology and consequentialism, how that intervention takes place falls in line with the idea of paternalism.



6. Social Work Practice: The issue of coercive care

The paternalistic relationship assumes two things, a power differential and the necessity of intervention to prevent harm. Although, as previously discussed, the current welfare system is paternalistic in nature, the limits of that paternalism, especially in the area of coercive treatment, have been important to the profession of social work. Hutchinson (1992) claims that the question is not whether social workers have the obligation to intervene and use their authority to prevent harm, but rather when and to what degree that intervention should take place. Furthermore, it should be expected that issues such as coercion will be met with competing moral values, and the importance lies in establishing guidelines that recognize this moral struggle. Hutchinson suggests that careful attention should be paid to the client’s level of self-determination (a prima facie) when deciding when involuntary treatment is necessary. Another suggestion is that if coercion is deemed necessary, the social worker should explain to the client what competing values are at stake and why involuntary treatment has been chosen as the most viable option. Even though Hutchinson supports coercion, she notes that this only applies to two specific situations: if the coercion is to fulfill a contract between the client and agency or state (such as mandatory treatment for batterers) or if the client is in danger of harming himself or herself, or others.

Concerning the paternalistic nature of the mental health system, Breeze (1998) points out that the prima facie duty of empowerment is in conflict with paternalism as a result of the emphasis on autonomous client decisions. The role of paternalism in mental health care, specifically around coercion, is brought into question due to the paternalistic assumption of incompetence. As Breeze points out, competence can be a subjective and value laden term. Both deontologists and consequentialists speak of the importance of autonomy. Deontology protects autonomy with the belief that autonomy enables a person to follow a universally accepted moral code. Consequentialists protect autonomy so that people can make choices that result in the most good for themselves and/or society. However, both sides agree that paternalism is acceptable in the absence of rationality. The problem becomes, as previously mentioned; that the assessment of rationality can be subjective, especially around issues such as cultural and socioeconomic differences.



7. Conclusion

The very nature of social policy and social work calls for morally based decisions about how to address deviant behavior. Creating policies and programs aimed at aiding people deemed to have a weakness by the rest of society brings up issues of self determination, innate morality, and the limits of systemic intervention. Deontology approaches this area with a built in set of expected moral behaviors. Although this approach might be the most straightforward, with rights and wrongs spanning situational and personal differences, it is unrealistic in that it assumes the ability to prevent undesired behaviors to the point that dealing with their consequences is not necessary. A more realistic approach is consequentialism, which accepts that undesirable behaviors are a given, and resources are better spent focusing on preventing harmful consequences and improving outcomes for society. Consequentialism recognizes that different people and circumstances call for various approaches. Furthermore, consequentialism accepts the contribution of client input, evaluation, and empiricism when deciding on the best alternative.

Whether policies or programs are deontological or consequentialist in nature, they can be carried out paternalistically. That is, the person in power intervenes on behalf of a person deemed incompetent with the primary goal or preventing harm or ensuring benefit. As previously discussed, two problems with paternalism are the subjective and relative nature of incompetence and the conflict between paternalism and the prima facie obligations of social welfare empowerment and self-determination.

Policies surrounding welfare, drugs, sexual activity, and other deviant-related issues are morally charged and based on deontological views of how people should behave and what they should be able to achieve. The profession of social work itself struggles with the incorporation of morality and rationality. Fostering discussions of ethical and moral practices might be one way to bring this issue into the spotlight of social work practice. The fact that social work deals with the delicate balance of good and harm around vulnerable populations calls for a careful examination of the morals, consequences, and objectives held by the profession.



References

Breeze, J. (1998). Can paternalism be justified in mental health care? Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 28, 260-5.



Darwell, S. (2002). Deontology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.



Duster, T. (1970). The legislation of morality: Law, drugs and moral judgment. New

York: Free Press.



Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2004). Deontological ethics. New York: Macmillan

Publishing.



Fellowes, M., & Rowe, M. (2004). Politics and the new American welfare states.

American Journal of Political Science, 48, 362-73.



Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2003). Bureau of justice statistics, prisoners in 2002.


Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.



Haydar, B. (2002). Forced supererogation and deontological restrictions. The Journal of

Value Inquiry, 36, 445-54.



Hutchinson, E. (1992). Competing moral values and use of social work authority with involuntary clients. In P. Reid and P. Popple (Eds.) The Moral Purposes of Social Work. (p. 120-136). Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Jansson, B. (1999). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2004). Reply to Ripstein: Notes on welfarist vs.

deontological principles. Economics and Philosophy, 20, 209-15.



Leonard, T., Goldfarb, R., & Suranovic, S. (2000). New on paternalism and public

policy. Economics and Philosophy, 16, 323-31.



Louise, J. (2004). Relativity of value and the consequentialist umbrella. The

Philosophical Quarterly, 54, 518-36.



MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2001). Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices,

times and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.



Mead, L. (1997). The rise of paternalism. In L. Mead (Ed.) The New Paternalism:

Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. (p. 1-38). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.



New, B. (1999). Paternalism and public policy. Economic and Philosophy, 15, 63-83.



Rainford, W. (2004). Paternalistic regulation of women: Exploring punitive sanctions in

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. AFFILIA, 19, 289-304.



Reamer, F. (1982). Ethical dilemmas in social services. New York: Columbia

University Press.



Reid, C. (1981). Choice and action. New York: Macmillan Publishing.



Ross, W.D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.



Scheffler, S. (1988). Consequentialism and its critics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.



Scheffler, S. (1994). The rejection of consequentialism: A philosophical investigation of the considerations Underlying rival moral conceptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skolnick, J. (1992). Rethinking the drug problem. Journal of the Academy of

Arts and Sciences: 133-57.



Soss, J., Schram, S., Vartarian, T., & O‘Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief:

Explaining state policy choices in the Devolution Revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 378-95.



Wilson, L., Stoker, R., & McGrath, D. (1999). Welfare bureaus as moral tutors: What do

clients learn from paternalistic welfare? Social Science Quarterly, 80, 473-87.

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/view/136/69/

SW 122 & SW130 Assignment (SONA)

Based on the State of the Nation Address of President Noynoy:

1. Identify his possible legislative agenda; what is its implication to social welfare and the delivery of social services. (SW 122 & SW 130)

2. Identify the stakeholders mentioned in his speech. Identify the possible interests and influence of the stakeholders on the President's legislative agenda.
(SW 130 only)

3. Try to identify through a power-interet grid, the relationship of the stakeholders identified in the speech. (SW 130 only)

[short bond- due August 3, 2010]

Announcement: The DSWD confirmed their availability this morning. Our field trip and seminar on programs will be on August 30, 2010.

Steps in Stakeholder Analysis

My Version:

BASIC STEPS IN STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
1. IDENTIFY THE STAKEHOLDERS
2. RANK THE STAKEHOLDERS ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE
3. UNDERSTAND THE STAKEHOLDERS
4. UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE STAKEHOLDERS according to power and interest
5. INFLUENCE THE STAKEHOLDERS

From the Net (Bright Hub)

What Are the Steps in Stakeholder Analysis?
There are eight major steps in the process:
1. Planning the process: The first step in conducting a stakeholder analysis is to define the purpose of the analysis, identify the potential users of the information, and devise a plan for using the information. A discussion of these issues should be led by the “sponsor,” or initiator, of the stakeholder analysis.
2. Select an appropriate policy: For a stakeholder analysis to be useful, it must be focused on a specific project. In most cases, the sponsor will have identified a project, but it is important to ensure that the policy in question is an appropriate project for a stakeholder analysis before the process begins.
3. Identifying the key stakeholders is extremely important to the success of the analysis: Based on the resources available, the project management team should decide on the maximum number of stakeholders to be interviewed. The team should then define the list of stakeholders.
4. Plan to interview the priority stakeholders identified: to gain accurate information on their positions, interests, and ability to affect the process.
5. Collecting and recording the information: Before beginning the interviews, the project management team should gather and review secondary information on the priority stakeholders. Possible secondary information sources include: newspapers, institutional reports and publications, speeches, organization annual reports, political platforms, etc.
6. Filling in the stakeholder table: This step of the process involves taking detailed and often lengthy answers from the interviews and arranging them into a more concise and systematized format (for anonymity and to highlight the most significant information). By doing this, the project management team can eventually develop clear comparisons among the different stakeholders and concisely present this information to the project managers who will use it.
7. Analyzing the stakeholder table: Once the stakeholder table is complete, the information needs to be "analyzed." Such an analysis should focus on comparing information and developing conclusions about the stakeholders' relative importance, knowledge, interests, positions, and possible allies regarding the policy in question.
8. Using the information: The use of the information generated by the stakeholder analysis should be discussed during Step 1, Planning the Process, and should be reviewed again once the results have been analyzed. As mentioned, there are various ways to use the information from a stakeholder analysis—to provide input into other analyses, to develop action plans to increase support for a project, or to guide a participatory, consensus-building process.

Analyzing the Stakeholder Table

When working on step 7, the working group should be able to conclude the following using the information in the stakeholder table:
• Who are the most important stakeholders?
• What is the stakeholders' knowledge of the policy?
• What are the stakeholders' positions on the specific policy?
• What do the stakeholders see as possible advantages or disadvantages of the policy?
• Which stakeholders might form alliances?
When conducted in the early planning stages of project management, stakeholder analysis offers many benefits to project managers aids in: identifying stakeholders, anticipating their influence, developing support strategies, and reducing any obstacles to a successful project completetion.

PNoy SONA (English Translation)

State of the Nation Address of His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President of the Philippines
To the Congress of the Philippines
Session Hall of the House of Representatives
July 26, 2010, [Batasan Pambansa Complex, Quezon City] (ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte; Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile; Vice President Jejomar Binay, Chief Justice Renato Corona, Former Presidents Fidel Valdez Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada; Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate; distinguished members of the diplomatic corps; my fellow workers in government;

My beloved countrymen:

Our administration is facing a forked road. On one direction, decisions are made to protect the welfare of our people; to look after the interest of the majority; to have a firm grip on principles; and to be faithful to the public servant’s sworn oath to serve the country honestly.

This is the straight path.

On the other side, personal interest is the priority, and where one becomes a slave to political considerations to the detriment of our nation.

This is the crooked path.

For a long time, our country lost its way in the crooked path. As days go by (since I became President), the massive scope of the problems we have inherited becomes much clearer. I could almost feel the weight of my responsibilities.

In the first three weeks of our administration, we discovered many things, and I will report to you some of the problems we have uncovered, and the steps we are taking to solve them.

This report is merely a glimpse of our situation. It is not the entire picture of the crises we are facing. The reality was hidden from our people, who seem to have been deliberately obfuscated on the real state of our nation.

In the first six years of this year, government expenditure exceeded our revenues. Our deficit further increased to PhP196.7 billion. Our collection targets, which lack PhP23.8 billion, were not fully met, while we went beyond our spending by PhP45.1 billion.

Our budget for 2010 is PhP1.54 trillion. Of this, only PhP100 billion - or 6.5% of the total budget – can be used for the remaining six months of the current year. Roughly 1% of the total budget is left for each of the remaining month.
Where did the funds go?

A calamity fund worth PhP2 billion was reserved in preparation for anticipated calamities. Of this already miniscule amount, at a time when the rainy season has yet to set in, PhP1.4 billion or 70% was already spent.

The entire province of Pampanga received PhP108 million. Of this, PhP105 million went to only one district. On the other hand, the province of Pangasinan, which was severely affected by Typhoon Pepeng, received a mere PhP5 million, which had to be used to fix damages inflicted not even by Pepeng, but by a previous typhoon, Cosme.

The funds were released on election month, which was seven months after the typhoon. What will happen if a typhoon arrives tomorrow? The fund has been used up to repair damage from typhoons that hit us last year. Our future will pay for the greed of yesterday.

This is also what happened to the funds of the MWSS. Just recently, people lined up for water while the leadership of the MWSS rewarded itself even though the pensions of retired employees remain unpaid.

The entire payroll of the MWSS amounts to 51.4 million pesos annually. But this isn’t the full extent of what they receive: they receive additional allowances and benefits amounting to 81.1 million pesos. In short, they receive 211.5 million pesos annually. Twenty four percent of this is for normal salaries, and sixty six percent is added on.

The average worker receives up to 13th month pay plus a cash gift. In the MWSS, they receive the equivalent of over thirty months pay if you include all their additional bonuses and allowances.

What we discovered in the case of the salaries of their board of trustees is even more shocking. Let’s take a look at the allowances they receive:

Attending board of trustees and board committee meetings, and you get fourteen thousands pesos. This totals ninety eight thousand pesos a month. They also get an annual grocery incentive of eighty thousand pesos.

And that’s not all. They get a mid-year bonus, productivity bonus, anniversary bonus, year-end bonus, and financial assistance. They not only get a Christmas bonus, but an additional Christmas package as well. Each of these amounts to eighty thousand pesos. All in all, each member of the board receives two and a half million pesos a year exclusive of car service, technical assistance, and loans. Let me repeat. They award themselves all of these while being in arrears for the pensions of their retired employees.

Even the La Mesa watershed wasn’t spared. In order to ensure an adequate supply of water, we need to protect our watersheds. In watersheds, trees are needed. Where there should be trees, they built homes for the top officials of the MWSS.

We cannot remove them from their positions quickly because they are among the midnight appointees of former president Arroyo. We are investigating all of these things. But if they have any shame left, they should voluntarily relinquish their positions.

Now let’s discuss funds for infrastructure. The DPWH identified two hundred forty six priority safety projects to be funded by the motor vehicle user’s charge. This needs a budget of 425 million pesos. What they ended up funding were only 28 projects. They disregarded 218 projects and replaced these with seventy projects that weren’t in the plans. The 425 million pesos originally asked for became 480 million pesos, increasing because of projects allocated for a favored few.

These projects make no sense: unstudied and unprepared for, sprouting like mushrooms.

The era of such projects is at an end. Under our administration, there will be no quotas, there will be no overpricing, the funds of the people will be spent for the people.

There’s more. Five days before the term of the previous administration ended, they ordered 3.5 billion pesos to be released for the rehabilitation of those affected by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. This was supposed to fund eighty-nine projects. But nineteen of these projects amounting to 981 million pesos didn’t go through public bidding. Special Allotment Release Orders hadn’t even been released and yet the contracts were already signed. It’s a good thing Secretary Rogelio Singson spotted and stopped them. Instead, they will all go through the proper bidding, and the funds will be used to provide relief to those who lost their homes due to typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng.

Let’s discuss what happened in Napocor. From 2001 to 2004, the government forced Napocor to sell electricity at a loss to prevent increases in electricity rates. The real motivation for this is that they were preparing for the election.

As a result, in 2004, NAPOCOR slumped deeply in debt. The government was obligated to shoulder the 200 billion pesos it owed.

What the public thought they saved from electricity, we are now paying for using public coffers. Not only are we paying for the cost of electricity; we are also paying for the interest arising from the debt.

If the money we borrowed was used properly, then there would be added assurance that constant supply of electricity is available. However, this decision was based on bad politics, not on the true needs of the people. The people, after having to sacrifice, suffered even more.

This is also what happened to the MRT. The government tried again to buy the people’s love. The operator was forced to keep the rates low.

In effect, the guarantee given to the operator that he will still be able to recoup his investment was not fulfilled. Because of this, Landbank and the Development Bank of the Philippines were ordered to purchase the MRT.

The money of the people was used in exchange for an operation that was losing money.

Let us now move on to the funds of the National Food Authority (NFA).
In 2004: 117,000 metric tons (of rice) was the shortage in the supply of the Philippines. What they (the government) bought were 900,000 metric tons. Even if you multiply for more than seven times the amount of shortage, they still bought more than what was needed.


In 2007: 589,000 metric tons was the shortage in the supply of the Philippines. What they bought were 1.827 million metric tons. Even if you multiply for more than three times the amount of shortage, they again bought more than what was needed.

What hurts is, because they keep purchasing more than what they need year after year, the excess rice that had to be stored in warehouses ended up rotting, just like what happened in 2008.

Is this not a crime, letting rice rot, despite the fact that there are 4 million Filipinos who do not eat three times a day?

The result is NFA’s current debt of 177 billion pesos.

This money that was wasted could have funded the following:

- The budget of the entire judiciary, which is at 12.7 billion pesos this year.

- The Conditional Cash Transfers for the following year, which cost 29.6 billion pesos.

- All the classrooms that our country needs, which cost 130 billion pesos.

This way of doing things is revolting. Money was there only to be wasted.
You have heard how the public coffers were squandered. This is what is clear to me now: change can only come from our determination to stamp out this extravagance and profligacy.

That is why starting now: we will stop the wasteful use of government funds. We will eradicate projects that are wrong.

This is the point of what we call the zero-based approach in our budget. What used to be the norm was every year, the budget merely gets re-enacted without plugging the holes.

Next month we will be submitting a budget that accurately identifies the problem and gives much attention on the right solution.

Those that I have mentioned were only some of the problems we have discovered. Here now are examples of the steps we are undertaking to solve them.

There is a case of one pawnshop owner. He purchased a vehicle at an estimated cost of 26 million pesos.

If he can afford to buy a Lamborghini, why can’t he pay his taxes?

A case has already been filed against him. Through the leadership of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, BIR Commissioner Kim Henares, Customs Commissioner Lito Alvarez, and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, every week we have new cases filed against smugglers and against those who do not pay the right taxes.

We have also already identified the suspects of the cases of Francisco Baldomero, Jose Daguio and Miguel Belen, 3 of the 6 incidents of extralegal killings since we assumed the Presidency.

Fifty percent (50%) of these incidents of extralegal killings are now on their way to being resolved.

We will not stop the pursuit of the remaining half of these killings until justice has been achieved.

We will hold murderers accountable. We will also hold those who are corrupt that work in government accountable for their actions.

We have begun forming our Truth Commission, through the leadership of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide. We will search for the truth on the alleged wrongdoing committed in the last nine years.

This week, I will sign the first ever Executive Order on the formation of this Truth Commission.

If the answer to justice is accountability, the answer to the dearth in funds is a new and creative approach to our long-standing problems.

We have so many needs: from education, infrastructure, health, military, police and more. Our funds will not be enough to meet them.

No matter how massive the deficit is that may keep us from paying for this list of needs, I am heartened because many have already expressed renewed interest and confidence in the Philippines.

Our solution: public-private partnerships. Although no contract has been signed yet, I can say that ongoing talks with interested investors will yield fruitful outcomes.

There are some who have already shown interest and want to build an expressway from Manila that will pass through Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, until the end of Cagayan Valley, without the government having to spend a single peso.

On national defense:

We have 36,000 nautical miles of shoreline, but we only have 32 boats. These boats are as old as the time of (US General Douglas) MacArthur.
Some had this proposition: they will rent the Navy headquarters on Roxas Boulevard and the Naval Station in Fort Bonifacio.

They will take care of the funding necessary to transfer the Navy Headquarters to Camp Aguinaldo. Immediately, we will be given 100 million dollars. Furthermore, they will give us a portion of their profits from their businesses that would occupy the land they will rent.

In short, we will meet our needs without spending, and we will also earn.

There have already been many proposals from local to foreign investors to provide for our various needs.

From these public-private partnerships, our economy will grow and every Filipino will be the beneficiary. There are so many sectors that could benefit from this.

We will be able to construct the needed infrastructure in order to help tourism grow.

In agriculture, we will be able to have access to grains terminals, refrigeration facilities, orderly road networks and post-harvest facilities.

If we can fix out food supply chain with the help of the private sector, instead of importing, we will hopefully be able to supply for the needs of the global market.

The prices of commodities will go down if we are able to make this efficient railway system a reality. It will be cheaper and faster, and it will be easier for travelers to avoid crooked cops and rebels.

A reminder to all: creating jobs is foremost on our agenda, and the creation of jobs will come from the growth of our industries. Growth will only be possible if we streamline processes to make them predictable, reliable and efficient for those who want to invest.

We make sure that the Build-Operate-and-Transfer projects will undergo quick and efficient processes. With the help of all government agencies concerned and the people, a process that used to take as short as a year and as long as a decade will now only take six months.

The Department of Trade and Industry has already taken steps to effect this change, under the leadership of Secretary Gregory Domingo:

The never-ending horror story of registering business names, which used to take a minimum of four to eight hours depending on the day, will be cut down drastically to fifteen minutes.

What used to be a check list of thirty-six documents will be shortened to a list of six, and the old eight-page application form will be whittled down to one page.

I call on our local government units to review its own procedures. While we look for more ways to streamline our processes to make business start-ups easier, I hope the LGUs can also find ways to implement reforms that will be consistent with the ones we have already started.

All will certainly benefit from this streamlining -- be it businessmen, soldiers, rebels and ordinary Filipinos. As long as the interests of Filipinos will not be jeopardized, we will explore all available avenues to make this a reality. We must start now, and we should all help achieve this and not stand in each other’s way.

The time when we will no longer be made to choose between our people’s security and the future of our children is upon us now.

Once we implement these public-private partnerships, we will be able to fund public service in accordance with our platform.

This will enable us to fund our plans for education.

We will be able to expand our basic education cycle from seven years to the global standard of twelve years.

We can build more classrooms, and we will fund service contracting under the Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Program (GASTPE).

Conditional cash transfers that aim to lessen the burden of education on parents will also be funded if this partnership becomes a reality.

Our plans for improving PhilHealth can now be within reach.

First, we will identify the correct number of Filipinos who sorely need PhilHealth coverage, as current data is conflicting on this matter. On one hand, PhilHealth says that eighty-seven percent (87%) of Filipinos are covered, then lowers the number to only fifty-three percent (53%). On the other hand, the National Statistics Office says that only thirty-eight percent (38%) of Filipinos are covered by Philhealth.

Even as we speak, Secretary Dinky Soliman and the Department of Social Welfare and Development are moving to implement the National Household Targeting System that will identify the families that most urgently need assistance. An estimated 9 billion pesos is needed in order to provide coverage for five million poor Filipinos.

Our country is beginning to see better days ahead. The private sector, the League of Provinces headed by Governor Alfonso Umali, together with Governors L-Ray Villafuerte and Icot Petilla, are now ready to do their share when it comes to shouldering the financial burden. I know that the League of Cities under the leadership of Mayor Oscar Rodriguez will not be far behind.

If the local governments share in our goals, I know that I can surely count on Congress, the institution where I began public service, to push for our agenda for change.

Our Cabinet has already showed it skill by identifying not just problems but also proposing solutions in a matter of three weeks.

In the aftermath of Typhoon Basyang, we were told by those in the power sector that we would be without electricity for four days. The quick action of Secretary Rene Almendras and the Department of Energy resulted in the restoration of power to almost all those affected within twenty-four hours.

The so-called water shortage in Metro Manila was quickly attended to by Secretary Rogelio Singson and the Department of Public Works and Highways. Secretary Singson did it without prodding, which alleviated the suffering of those affected.

We also witnessed the competence and initiative of those we appointed to be part of our Cabinet. It is but just that they not be forced to go through the eye of a needle to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Should this happen, competent Filipinos will be encouraged to help our country by becoming public servants.

In the soonest possible time, we will convene the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) to discuss the important bills that need to be addressed. Rest assured that I will keep an open mind and treat you honorably.

We will push for the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, which will limit spending bills only for appropriations that have identified a source of funding. We need 104.1 billion pesos to fund those laws already passed but whose implementation remains pending because of lack of funds.

We will re-evaluate fiscal incentives given in the past. Now that we are tightening our purse strings, we need to identify those incentives that will remain and those that need to be done away with.

We will not allow another NBN-ZTE scandal to happen again. Whether from local or foreign sources, all proposed contracts must undergo the scrutiny of correct procedures. I now ask for your help with amending our Procurement Law.

According to our Constitution, it is the government’s duty to ensure that the market is fair for all. No monopolies, no cartels that kill competition. We need an Anti-Trust Law that will give life to these principles, to afford Small- and Medium-Scale Enterprises the opportunity to participate in the growth of our economy.

Let us pass into law the National Land Use Bill.

It was in 1935, during the Commonwealth, that the National Defense Act was passed. There is a need to amend for a new law that is more responsive to the current needs of national security.

I appeal to our legislators to pass the Whistleblower’s Bill to eradicate the prevalent culture of fear and silence that has hounded our system.
We will strengthen the Witness Protection Program. We must remember that from 2009 to 2010 alone, cases which involved the participation of witnesses under the program resulted in a ninety-five percent conviction.

There is a need to review our laws. I call on our lawmakers to begin a re-codification of our laws to ensure harmony in legislation and eliminate contradictions.

These laws serve as the basis of order in our land, but the foundation of all rests on the principle that we cannot grow without peace and order.
We face two obstacles on our road to peace: the situation in Mindanao and the continued revolt of the CPP-NPA-NDF.

Our view has not changed when it comes to the situation in Mindanao. We will only achieve lasting peace if all stakeholders engage in an honest dialogue: may they be Moro, Lumad, or Christian. We have asked Dean Marvic Leonen to head our efforts to talk to the MILF.

We will learn from the mistakes of the past administration, that suddenly announced an agreement reached without consultations from all concerned. We are not blind to the fact that it was done with political motivation, and that the interest behind it was not that of the people.

We recognize the efforts of the MILF to discipline those within its ranks. We are hopeful that the negotiations will begin after Ramadan.

To the CPP-NPA-NDF: are you prepared to put forth concrete solutions rather than pure criticism and finger-pointing?

If it is peace you truly desire, then we are ready for an immediate cease-fire. Let us go back to the table and begin talking again.

It is difficult to begin discussions in earnest if the smell of gun powder still hangs in the air. I call on everyone concerned not to waste a good opportunity to rally behind our common aspiration for peace.

Our foundation for growth is peace. We will continue to be shackled by poverty if the crossfire persists.

We must understand that now is a time for sacrifice. It is this sacrifice that will pave the way for a better future. With our freedom comes our responsibility to do good unto our fellows and to our country.

To our friends in media, especially those in radio and print, to the block-timers and those in our community newspapers, I trust that you will take up the cudgels to police your own ranks.

May you give new meaning to the principles of your vocation: to provide clarity to pressing issues; to be fair and truthful in your reporting, and to raise the level of public discourse.

It is every Filipino’s duty to closely watch the leaders that you have elected. I encourage everyone to take a step towards participation rather than fault-finding. The former takes part in finding a solution; from the latter, never-ending complaints.

We have always known that the key to growth is putting the interest of others beyond one’s own. One thing is clear: how do we move forward if we keep putting others down?

How will those without education secure quality jobs? How will the unemployed become consumers? How will they save money for their future needs?

If we change all this, if we prioritize enabling others, we will open a world of opportunities not just for ourselves but for those who direly need it.
We have already begun the process of change, and we are now able to dream of better things for our country. Let us not forget that there are those who wish us to fail, so that they will once again reclaim power to do as they please at the expense of our people.

My firm belief is that our fate is in the hands of God and our people. While we focus on uplifting the lives of our fellow men, I have an unshakeable faith that Almighty God will give us His blessings and support. If we remain firm in our belief that God is on our side, is there anything impossible for us to achieve?

The mandate we received last May 10 is testament to the fact that the Filipino continues to hope for true change. The situation is not what it was before; we can all dream again. Let us all become one in achieving a fulfilment of our hopes and aspirations for our country.

Thank you very much!

Source: http://www.coolbuster.net/2010/06/president-aquino-sona-2010-transcript.html#ixzz0up3SwIur

President Aquino JUly 2010 SONA

State of the Nation Address of His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President of the Philippines
to the Congress of the Philippines
Session Hall of the House of Representatives
July 26, 2010, Batasan Pambansa Complex, Quezon City

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte; Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile; Vice President Jejomar Binay; Chief Justice Renato Corona; Former Presidents Fidel Valdez Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada; members of the House of Representatives and the Senate; distinguished members of the diplomatic corps; my fellow workers in government;

Mga minamahal kong kababayan:

Sa bawat sandali po ng pamamahala ay nahaharap tayo sa isang sangandaan.

Sa isang banda po ay ang pagpili para sa ikabubuti ng taumbayan. Ang pagtanaw sa interes ng nakakarami; ang pagkapit sa prinsipyo; at ang pagiging tapat sa sinumpaan nating tungkulin bilang lingkod-bayan. Ito po ang tuwid na daan.

Sa kabilang banda ay ang pag-una sa pansariling interes. Ang pagpapaalipin sa pulitikal na konsiderasyon, at pagsasakripisyo ng kapakanan ng taumbayan. Ito po ang baluktot na daan.

Matagal pong naligaw ang pamahalaan sa daang baluktot. Araw-araw po, lalong lumilinaw sa akin ang lawak ng problemang ating namana. Damang-dama ko ang bigat ng aking responsibilidad.

Sa unang tatlong linggo ng aming panunungkulan, marami po kaming natuklasan. Nais ko pong ipahayag sa inyo ang iilan lamang sa mga namana nating suliranin at ang ginagawa naming hakbang para lutasin ang mga ito.

Sulyap lamang po ito; hindi pa ito ang lahat ng problemang haharapin natin. Inilihim at sadyang iniligaw ang sambayanan sa totoong kalagayan ng ating bansa.

Sa unang anim na buwan ng taon, mas malaki ang ginastos ng gobyerno kaysa sa pumasok na kita. Lalong lumaki ang deficit natin, na umakyat na sa 196.7 billion pesos. Sa target na kuleksyon, kinapos tayo ng 23.8 billion pesos; ang tinataya namang gastos, nalagpasan natin ng 45.1 billion pesos.

Ang budget po sa 2010 ay 1.54 trillion pesos. Nasa isandaang bilyong piso o anim at kalahating porsyento na lang ng kabuuan ang malaya nating magagamit para sa nalalabing anim na buwan ng taong ito.

Halos isang porsyento na lang po ng kabuuang budget ang natitira para sa bawat buwan.

Saan naman po dinala ang pera?

Naglaan ng dalawang bilyong piso na Calamity Fund bilang paghahanda para sa mga kalamidad na hindi pa nangyayari. Napakaliit na nga po ng pondong ito, ngunit kapapasok pa lang natin sa panahon ng baha at bagyo, 1.4 billion pesos o sitenta porsyento na ang nagastos.

Sa kabuuan ng 108 million pesos para sa lalawigan ng Pampanga, 105 million pesos nito ay napunta sa iisang distrito lamang. Samantala, ang lalawigan ng Pangasinan na sinalanta ng Pepeng ay nakatanggap ng limang milyong piso lamang para sa pinsalang idinulot ng bagyong Cosme, na nangyari noong 2008 pa.

Ibinigay po ang pondo ng Pampanga sa buwan ng eleksyon, pitong buwan pagkatapos ng Ondoy at Pepeng. Paano kung bumagyo bukas? Inubos na ang pondo nito para sa bagyong nangyari noong isang taon pa. Pagbabayaran ng kinabukasan ang kasakiman ng nakaraan.

Ganyan din po ang nangyari sa pondo ng MWSS. Kamakailan lamang, pumipila ang mga tao para lang makakuha ng tubig. Sa kabila nito, minabuti pa ng liderato ng MWSS na magbigay ng gantimpala sa sarili kahit hindi pa nababayaran ang pensyon ng mga retiradong empleyado.

Noong 2009, ang buong payroll ng MWSS ay 51.4 million pesos. Pero hindi lang naman po ito ang sahod nila; may mga additional allowances at benefits pa sila na aabot sa 160.1 million pesos. Sa madaling sabi, nakatanggap sila ng 211.5 million pesos noong nakaraang taon. Beinte-kuwatro porsyento lang nito ang normal na sahod, at sitenta’y sais porsyento ang dagdag.

Ang karaniwang manggagawa hanggang 13th month pay plus cash gift lang ang nakukuha. Sa MWSS, aabot sa katumbas ng mahigit sa tatlumpung buwan ang sahod kasama na ang lahat ng mga bonuses at allowances na nakuha nila.

Mas matindi po ang natuklasan natin sa pasahod ng kanilang Board of Trustees. Tingnan po natin ang mga allowances na tinatanggap nila:
Umupo ka lang sa Board of Trustees at Board Committee meeting, katorse mil na. Aabot ng nobenta’y otso mil ito kada buwan. May grocery incentive pa sila na otsenta mil kada taon.

Hindi lang iyon: may mid-year bonus, productivity bonus, anniversary bonus, year-end bonus, at Financial Assistance. May Christmas bonus na, may Additional Christmas Package pa. Kada isa sa mga ito, nobenta’y otso mil.

Sa suma total po, aabot ang lahat ng dalawa’t kalahating milyong piso kada taon sa bawat miyembro ng Board maliban sa pakotse, technical assistance, at pautang. Uulitin ko po. Lahat ng ito ay ibinibigay nila sa kanilang mga sarili habang hindi pa nababayaran ang mga pensyon ng kanilang mga retirees.

Pati po ang La Mesa Watershed ay hindi nila pinatawad. Para magkaroon ng tamang supply ng tubig, kailangang alagaan ang mga watershed. Sa watershed, puno ang kailangan. Pati po iyon na dapat puno ang nakatayo, tinayuan nila ng bahay para sa matataas na opisyal ng MWSS.

Hindi naman sila agad maaalis sa puwesto dahil kabilang sila sa mga Midnight Appointees ni dating Pangulong Arroyo. Iniimbestigahan na natin ang lahat nang ito. Kung mayroon pa silang kahit kaunting hiya na natitira – sana kusa na lang silang magbitiw sa puwesto.

Pag-usapan naman po natin ang pondo para sa imprastruktura. Tumukoy ang DPWH ng dalawandaan apatnapu’t anim na priority safety projects na popondohan ng Motor Vehicle Users Charge. Mangangailangan po ito ng budget na 425 million pesos.

Ang pinondohan po, dalawampu’t walong proyekto lang. Kinalimutan po ang dalawandaan at labing walong proyekto at pinalitan ng pitumpung proyekto na wala naman sa plano. Ang hininging 425 million pesos, naging 480 million pesos pa, lumaki lalo dahil sa mga proyektong sa piling-piling mga benepisyaryo lang napunta.

Mga proyekto po itong walang saysay, hindi pinag-aralan at hindi pinaghandaan, kaya parang kabuteng sumusulpot.

Tapos na po ang panahon para dito. Sa administrasyon po natin, walang kota-kota, walang tongpats, ang pera ng taumbayan ay gagastusin para sa taumbayan lamang.

Meron pa po tayong natuklasan. Limang araw bago matapos ang termino ng nakaraang administrasyon, nagpautos silang maglabas ng 3.5 billion pesos para sa rehabilitasyon ng mga nasalanta nina Ondoy at Pepeng.

Walumpu’t anim na proyekto ang paglalaanan dapat nito na hindi na sana idadaan sa public bidding. Labingsiyam sa mga ito na nagkakahalaga ng 981 million pesos ang muntik nang makalusot. Hindi pa nailalabas ang Special Allotment Release Order ay pirmado na ang mga kontrata.

Buti na lang po ay natuklasan at pinigilan ito ni Secretary Rogelio Singson ng DPWH. Ngayon po ay dadaan na ang kabuuan ng 3.5 billion pesos sa tapat na bidding, at magagamit na ang pondo na ito sa pagbibigay ng lingap sa mga nawalan ng tahanan dahil kina Ondoy at Pepeng.

Pag-usapan naman natin ang nangyari sa NAPOCOR. Noong 2001 hanggang 2004, pinilit ng gobyerno ang NAPOCOR na magbenta ng kuryente nang palugi para hindi tumaas ang presyo. Tila ang dahilan: pinaghahandaan na nila ang eleksyon.
Dahil dito, noong 2004, sumagad ang pagkakabaon sa utang ng NAPOCOR. Napilitan ang pambansang gobyerno na sagutin ang dalawandaang bilyong pisong utang nito.

Ang inakala ng taumbayan na natipid nila sa kuryente ay binabayaran din natin mula sa kaban ng bayan. May gastos na tayo sa kuryente, binabayaran pa natin ang dagdag na pagkakautang ng gobyerno.

Kung naging matino ang pag-utang, sana’y nadagdagan ang ating kasiguruhan sa supply ng kuryente. Pero ang desisyon ay ibinatay sa maling pulitika, at hindi sa pangangailangan ng taumbayan. Ang taumbayan, matapos pinagsakripisyo ay lalo pang pinahirapan.

Ganito rin po ang nangyari sa MRT. Sinubukan na namang bilhin ang ating pagmamahal. Pinilit ang operator na panatilihing mababa ang pamasahe.
Hindi tuloy nagampanan ang garantiyang ibinigay sa operator na mababawi nila ang kanilang puhunan. Dahil dito, inutusan ang Landbank at Development Bank of the Philippines na bilhin ang MRT.

Ang pera ng taumbayan, ipinagpalit sa isang naluluging operasyon.
Dumako naman po tayo sa pondo ng NFA.

Noong 2004: 117,000 metric tons ang pagkukulang ng supply ng Pilipinas. Ang binili nila, 900,000 metric tons. Kahit ulitin mo pa ng mahigit pitong beses ang pagkukulang, sobra pa rin ang binili nila.

Noong 2007: 589,000 metric tons ang pagkukulang ng supply sa Pilipinas. Ang binili nila, 1.827 million metric tons. Kahit ulitin mo pa ng mahigit tatlong beses ang pagkukulang, sobra na naman ang binili nila.

Ang masakit nito, dahil sobra-sobra ang binibili nila taun-taon, nabubulok lang pala sa mga kamalig ang bigas, kagaya ng nangyari noong 2008.
Hindi po ba krimen ito, na hinahayaan nilang mabulok ang bigas, sa kabila ng apat na milyong Pilipinong hindi kumakain ng tatlong beses sa isang araw?

Ang resulta nito, umabot na sa 171.6 billion pesos ang utang ng NFA noong Mayo ng taong ito.

Ang tinapon na ito, halos puwede na sanang pondohan ang mga sumusunod:

Ang budget ng buong Hudikatura, na 12.7 billion pesos sa taong ito.

Ang Conditional Cash Transfers para sa susunod na taon, na nagkakahalaga ng 29.6 billion pesos.

Ang lahat ng classroom na kailangan ng ating bansa, na nagkakahalaga ng 130 billion pesos.

Kasuklam-suklam ang kalakarang ito. Pera na, naging bato pa.

Narinig po ninyo kung paano nilustay ang kaban ng bayan. Ang malinaw po sa ngayon: ang anumang pagbabago ay magmumula sa pagsiguro natin na magwawakas na ang pagiging maluho at pagwawaldas.

Kaya nga po mula ngayon: ititigil na natin ang paglulustay sa salapi ng bayan. Tatanggalin natin ang mga proyektong mali.

Ito po ang punto ng tinatawag nating zero-based approach sa ating budget. Ang naging kalakaran po, taun-taon ay inuulit lamang ang budget na puno ng tagas. Dadagdagan lang nang konti, puwede na.

Sa susunod na buwan ay maghahain tayo ng budget na kumikilala nang tama sa mga problema, at magtutuon din ng pansin sa tamang solusyon.

Ilan lang ito sa mga natuklasan nating problema. Heto naman po ang ilang halimbawa ng mga hakbang na ginagawa natin.

Nandiyan po ang kaso ng isang may-ari ng sanglaan. Bumili siya ng sasakyang tinatayang nasa dalawampu’t anim na milyong piso ang halaga.

Kung kaya mong bumili ng Lamborghini, bakit hindi mo kayang magbayad ng buwis?

Nasampahan na po ito ng kaso. Sa pangunguna nina Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, BIR Commissioner Kim Henares at Customs Commissioner Lito Alvarez, bawat linggo po ay may bago tayong kasong isinasampa kontra sa mga smuggler at sa mga hindi nagbabayad ng tamang buwis.

Natukoy na rin po ang salarin sa mga kaso nina Francisco Baldomero, Jose Daguio at Miguel Belen, tatlo sa anim na insidente ng extralegal killings mula nang umupo tayo.

Singkuwenta porsyento po ng mga insidente ng extralegal killings ang patungo na sa kanilang resolusyon.

Ang natitira pong kalahati ay hindi natin tatantanan ang pag-usig hanggang makamit ang katarungan.

Pananagutin natin ang mga mamamatay-tao. Pananagutin din natin ang mga corrupt sa gobyerno.

Nagsimula nang mabuo ang ating Truth Commission, sa pangunguna ni dating Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Hahanapin natin ang katotohanan sa mga nangyari diumanong katiwalian noong nakaraang siyam na taon.

Sa loob ng linggong ito, pipirmahan ko ang kauna-unahang Executive Order na nagtatalaga sa pagbuo nitong Truth Commission.

Kung ang sagot sa kawalan ng katarungan ay pananagutan, ang sagot naman sa kakulangan natin sa pondo ay mga makabago at malikhaing paraan para tugunan ang mga pagkatagal-tagal nang problema.

Napakarami po ng ating pangangailangan: mula sa edukasyon, imprastruktura, pangkalusugan, pangangailangan ng militar at kapulisan, at marami pang iba. Hindi kakasya ang pondo para mapunan ang lahat ng ito.

Kahit gaano po kalaki ang kakulangan para mapunan ang mga listahan ng ating pangangailangan, ganado pa rin ako dahil marami nang nagpakita ng panibagong interes at kumpyansa sa Pilipinas.

Ito ang magiging solusyon: mga Public-Private Partnerships. Kahit wala pa pong pirmahang nangyayari dito, masasabi kong maganda ang magiging bunga ng maraming usapin ukol dito.

May mga nagpakita na po ng interes, gustong magtayo ng expressway na mula Maynila, tatahak ng Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, hanggang sa dulo ng Cagayan Valley nang hindi gugugol ang estado kahit na po piso.

Sa larangan ng ating Sandatahang Lakas:

Mayroon po tayong 36,000 nautical miles ng baybayin. Ang mayroon lamang tayo: tatlumpu’t dalawang barko. Itong mga barkong ito, panahon pa ni MacArthur.

May nagmungkahi sa atin, ito ang proposisyon: uupahan po nila ang headquarters ng Navy sa Roxas Boulevard at ang Naval Station sa Fort Bonifacio.

Sagot po nila ang paglipat ng Navy Headquarters sa Camp Aguinaldo. Agaran, bibigyan tayo ng isandaang milyong dolyar. At dagdag pa sa lahat nang iyan, magsusubi pa sila sa atin ng kita mula sa mga negosyong itatayo nila sa uupahan nilang lupa.

Sa madali pong sabi: Makukuha natin ang kailangan natin, hindi tatayo gagastos, kikita pa tayo.

Marami na pong nag-alok at nagmungkahi sa atin, mula lokal hanggang dayuhang negosyante, na magpuno ng iba’t ibang pangangailangan.

Mula sa mga public-private partnerships na ito, lalago ang ating ekonomiya, at bawat Pilipino makikinabang. Napakaraming sektor na matutulungan nito.

Maipapatayo na po ang imprastrukturang kailangan natin para palaguin ang turismo.

Sa agrikultura, makapagtatayo na tayo ng mga grains terminals, refrigeration facilities, maayos na road networks at post-harvest facilities.

Kung maisasaayos natin ang ating food supply chain sa tulong ng pribadong sektor, sa halip na mag-angkat tayo ay maari na sana tayong mangarap na mag-supply sa pandaigdigang merkado.

Kung maitatayo ang minumungkahi sa ating railway system, bababa ang presyo ng bilihin. Mas mura, mas mabilis, mas maginhawa, at makakaiwas pa sa kotong cops at mga kumokotong na rebelde ang mga bumibiyahe.

Paalala lang po: una sa ating plataporma ang paglikha ng mga trabaho, at nanggagaling ang trabaho sa paglago ng industriya. Lalago lamang ang industriya kung gagawin nating mas malinis, mas mabilis, at mas maginhawa ang proseso para sa mga gustong magnegosyo.

Pabibilisin natin ang proseso ng mga proyektong sumasailalim sa Build-Operate-Transfer. Sa tulong ng lahat ng sangay ng gobyerno at ng mga mamamayan, pabababain natin sa anim na buwan ang proseso na noon ay inaabot ng taon kung hindi dekada.

May mga hakbang na rin pong sinisimulan ang DTI, sa pamumuno ni Secretary Gregory Domingo:

Ang walang-katapusang pabalik-balik sa proseso ng pagrehistro ng pangalan ng kumpanya, na kada dalaw ay umaabot ng apat hanggang walong oras, ibababa na natin sa labinlimang minuto.

Ang dating listahan ng tatlumpu’t anim na dokumento, ibababa natin sa anim. Ang dating walong pahinang application form, ibababa natin sa isang pahina.

Nananawagan ako sa ating mga LGUs. Habang naghahanap tayo ng paraan para gawing mas mabilis ang pagbubukas ng mga negosyo, pag-aralan din sana nila ang kanilang mga proseso. Kailangan itong gawing mas mabilis, at kailangan itong itugma sa mga sinisumulan nating reporma.

Negosyante, sundalo, rebelde, at karaniwang Pilipino, lahat po makikinabang dito. Basta po hindi dehado ang Pilipino, papasukin po natin lahat iyan. Kailangan na po nating simulan ang pagtutulungan para makamit ito. Huwag nating pahirapan ang isa’t isa.

Parating na po ang panahon na hindi na natin kailangang mamili sa pagitan ng seguridad ng ating mamamayan o sa kinabukasan ng inyong mga anak.

Oras na maipatupad ang public-private partnerships na ito, mapopondohan ang mga serbisyong panlipunan, alinsunod sa ating plataporma.

Magkakapondo na po para maipatupad ang mga plano natin sa edukasyon.
Mapapalawak natin ang basic education cycle mula sa napakaikling sampung taon tungo sa global standard na labindalawang taon.

Madadagdagan natin ang mga classroom. Mapopondohan natin ang service contracting sa ilalim ng GASTPE.

Pati ang conditional cash transfers, na magbabawas ng pabigat sa bulsa ng mga pamilya, madadagdan na rin ng pondo.

Maipapatupad ang plano natin sa PhilHealth.

Una, tutukuyin natin ang tunay na bilang ng mga nangangailangan nito. Sa ngayon, hindi magkakatugma ang datos. Sabi ng PhilHealth sa isang bibig, walumpu’t pitong porsyento na raw ang merong coverage. Sa kabilang bibig naman, singkuwenta’y tres porsyento naman. Ayon naman sa National Statistics Office, tatlumpu’t walong porsyento ang may coverage.

Ngayon pa lang, kumikilos na si Secretary Dinky Soliman at ang DSWD upang ipatupad ang National Household Targetting System, na magtutukoy sa mga pamilyang higit na nagangailangan ng tulong. Tinatayang siyam na bilyon ang kailangan para mabigyan ng PhilHealth ang limang milyong pinakamaralitang pamilyang Pilipino.

Napakaganda po ng hinaharap natin. Kasama na po natin ang pribadong sektor, at kasama na rin natin ang League of Provinces, sa pangunguna nina Governor Alfonso Umali kasama sina Governor L-Ray Villafuerte at Governor Icot Petilla. Handa na pong makipagtulungan para makibahagi sa pagtustos ng mga gastusin. Alam ko rin pong hindi magpapahuli ang League of Cities sa pangunguna ni Mayor Oscar Rodriguez.

Kung ang mga gobyernong lokal ay nakikiramay na sa ating mga adhikain, ang Kongreso namang pinanggalingan ko, siguro naman maasahan ko din.

Nagpakitang-gilas na po ang gabinete sa pagtukoy ng ating mga problema at sa paglulunsad ng mga solusyon sa loob lamang ng tatlong linggo.

Nang bagyo pong Basyang, ang sabi sa atin ng mga may prangkisa sa kuryente, apat na araw na walang kuryente. Dahil sa mabilis na pagkilos ni Secretary Rene Almendras at ng Department of Energy, naibalik ang kuryente sa halos lahat sa loob lamang ng beinte-kwatro oras.

Ito pong sinasabing kakulangan sa tubig sa Metro Manila, kinilusan agad ni Secretary Rogelio Singson at ng DPWH. Hindi na siya naghintay ng utos, kaya nabawasan ang perwisyo.

Nakita na rin natin ang gilas ng mga hinirang nating makatulong sa Gabinete. Makatuwiran naman po sigurong umasa na hindi na sila padadaanin sa butas ng karayom para makumpirma ng Commission on Appointments. Kung mangyayari po ito, marami pa sa mga mahuhusay na Pilipino ang maeengganyong magsilbi sa gobyerno.

Sa lalong madaling panahon po, uupo na tayo sa LEDAC at pag-uusapan ang mga mahahalagang batas na kailangan nating ipasa. Makakaasa kayo na mananatiling bukas ang aking isipan, at ang ating ugnayan ay mananatiling tapat.

Isinusulong po natin ang Fiscal Responsibility Bill, kung saan hindi tayo magpapasa ng batas na mangangailangan ng pondo kung hindi pa natukoy ang panggagalingan nito. May 104.1 billion pesos tayong kailangan para pondohan ang mga batas na naipasa na, ngunit hindi maipatupad.
Kailangan din nating isaayos ang mga insentibong piskal na ibinigay noong nakaraan. Ngayong naghihigpit tayo ng sinturon, kailangang balikan kung alin sa mga ito ang dapat manatili at kung ano ang dapat nang itigil.

Huwag po tayong pumayag na magkaroon ng isa pang NBN-ZTE. Sa lokal man o dayuhan manggagaling ang pondo, dapat dumaan ito sa tamang proseso. Hinihingi ko po ang tulong ninyo upang amiyendahan ang ating Procurement Law.

Ayon po sa Saligang Batas, tungkulin ng estado ang siguruhing walang lamangan sa merkado. Bawal ang monopolya, bawal ang mga cartel na sasakal sa kumpetisyon. Kailangan po natin ng isang Anti-Trust Law na magbibigay-buhay sa mga prinsipyong ito. Ito ang magbibigay ng pagkakataon sa mga Small- at Medium-scale Enterprises na makilahok at tumulong sa paglago ng ating ekonomiya.
Ipasa na po natin ang National Land Use Bill.

Una rin pong naging batas ng Commonwealth ang National Defense Act, na ipinasa noon pang 1935. Kailangan nang palitan ito ng batas na tutugon sa pangangailangan ng pambansang seguridad sa kasalukuyan.

Nakikiusap po akong isulong ang Whistleblower’s Bill upang patuloy nang iwaksi ang kultura ng takot at pananahimik.

Palalakasin pa lalo ang Witness Protection Program. Alalahanin po natin na noong taong 2009 hanggang 2010, may nahatulan sa 95% ng mga kaso kung saan may witness na sumailalim sa programang ito.

Kailangang repasuhin ang ating mga batas. Nanawagan po akong umpisahan na ang rekodipikasyon ng ating mga batas, upang siguruhing magkakatugma sila at hindi salu-salungat.

Ito pong mga batas na ito ang batayan ng kaayusan, ngunit ang pundasyon ng lahat ng ginagawa natin ay ang prinsipyong wala tayong mararating kung walang kapayapaan at katahimikan.

Dalawa ang hinaharap nating suliranin sa usapin ng kapayapaan: ang situwasyon sa Mindanao, at ang patuloy na pag-aaklas ng CPP-NPA-NDF.

Tungkol sa situwasyon sa Mindanao: Hindi po nagbabago ang ating pananaw. Mararating lamang ang kapayapaan at katahimikan kung mag-uusap ang lahat ng apektado: Moro, Lumad, at Kristiyano. Inatasan na natin si Dean Marvic Leonen na mangasiwa sa ginagawa nating pakikipag-usap sa MILF.

Iiwasan natin ang mga pagkakamaling nangyari sa nakaraang administrasyon, kung saan binulaga na lang ang mga mamamayan ng Mindanao. Hindi tayo puwedeng magbulag-bulagan sa mga dudang may kulay ng pulitika ang proseso, at hindi ang kapakanan ng taumbayan ang tanging interes.

Kinikilala natin ang mga hakbang na ginagawa ng MILF sa pamamagitan ng pagdidisplina sa kanilang hanay. Inaasahan natin na muling magsisimula ang negosasyon pagkatapos ng Ramadan.

Tungkol naman po sa CPP-NPA-NDF: handa na ba kayong maglaan ng kongkretong mungkahi, sa halip na pawang batikos lamang?

Kung kapayapaan din ang hangad ninyo, handa po kami sa malawakang tigil-putukan. Mag-usap tayo.

Mahirap magsimula ang usapan habang mayroon pang amoy ng pulbura sa hangin. Nananawagan ako: huwag po natin hayaang masayang ang napakagandang pagkakataong ito upang magtipon sa ilalim ng iisang adhikain.

Kapayapaan at katahimikan po ang pundasyon ng kaunlaran. Habang nagpapatuloy ang barilan, patuloy din ang pagkakagapos natin sa kahirapan.

Dapat din po nating mabatid: ito ay panahon ng sakripisyo. At ang sakripisyong ito ay magiging puhunan para sa ating kinabukasan. Kaakibat ng ating mga karapatan at kalayaan ay ang tungkulin natin sa kapwa at sa bayan.

Inaasahan ko po ang ating mga kaibigan sa media, lalo na sa radyo at sa print, sa mga nagbablock-time, at sa community newspapers, kayo na po mismo ang magbantay sa inyong hanay.

Mabigyang-buhay sana ang mga batayang prinsipyo ng inyong bokasyon: ang magbigay-linaw sa mahahalagang isyu; ang maging patas at makatotohanan, at ang itaas ang antas ng pampublikong diskurso.

Tungkulin po ng bawat Pilipino na tutukan ang mga pinunong tayo rin naman ang nagluklok sa puwesto. Humakbang mula sa pakikialam tungo sa pakikilahok. Dahil ang nakikialam, walang-hanggan ang reklamo. Ang nakikilahok, nakikibahagi sa solusyon.

Napakatagal na pong namamayani ang pananaw na ang susi sa asenso ay ang intindihin ang sarili kaysa intindihin ang kapwa. Malinaw po sa akin: paano tayo aasenso habang nilalamangan ang kapwa?

Ang hindi nabigyan ng pagkakataong mag-aral, paanong makakakuha ng trabaho? Kung walang trabaho, paanong magiging konsumer? Paanong mag-iimpok sa bangko?

Ngunit kung babaliktarin natin ang pananaw—kung iisipin nating “Dadagdagan ko ang kakayahan ng aking kapwa”—magbubunga po ito, at ang lahat ay magkakaroon ng pagkakataon.

Maganda na po ang nasimulan natin. At mas lalong maganda po ang mararating natin. Ngunit huwag nating kalimutan na mayroong mga nagnanasang hindi tayo magtagumpay. Dahil kapag hindi tayo nagtagumpay, makakabalik na naman sila sa kapangyarihan, at sa pagsasamantala sa taumbayan.

Akin pong paniwala na Diyos at taumbayan ang nagdala sa ating kinalalagyan ngayon. Habang nakatutok tayo sa kapakanan ng ating kapwa, bendisyon at patnubay ay tiyak na maaasahan natin sa Poong Maykapal. At kapag nanalig tayo na ang kasangga natin ay ang Diyos, mayroon ba tayong hindi kakayanin?

Ang mandato nating nakuha sa huling eleksyon ay patunay na umaasa pa rin ang Pilipino sa pagbabago. Iba na talaga ang situwasyon. Puwede na muling mangarap. Tayo nang tumungo sa katuparan ng ating mga pinangarap.

Maraming salamat po."